Skip to main content

About your Search

20121130
20121130
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
night and every day. moments ago, speaker of the house john boehner said this. >> the white house spent three weeks trying to develop a proposal. they call for $1.6 trillion in new taxes. calling for not even $400 billion in cuts, and they want to have this extra spending that is actually greater than the amount that we would cut. i mean, it is not a serious proposal. so right now we are almost nowhere. megyn: alan colmes and lars larson are with us now. let's just focus on this debt ceiling. the reason we find ourselves about to go off the fiscal cliff with the automatic spending cuts, in part is because back in 2011, they wanted to raise the debt ceiling and the republicans said you cannot do it unless we do spending cuts. we cannot just do deficit spending. so they agree, they cut this deal, now the democrats are going to the republicans and saying, forget that. let's just in the position to get rid of it. what on earth would make them think that republicans would agree to that? >> because the president thinks he has a mandate from the whole country. he thinks he can get anything he
to do with geithner's plan. yesterday, john boehner moved the markets higher. it was joyful talk about a possible deal, but today, it was like a break-up over tax. he went from love to disgust. here he is right after tim geithner put that deal on the table. >> no progress has been made in the talks between the white house and the house over the last two weeks. >> all right. that's pretty grim. stocks lost early games on that news and the day went downhill. harry reid slapped back. >> still waiting for a serious offer from the republicans. >> so, they agree on something. no progress. but then it actually went beyond that. reid got a little personal. >> i don't understand his brain so you should ask him, okay? >> funny, but really not so funny. so what happens when the men in charge start throwing sand in the sand box? we just go over the cliff like some are now suggesting? recall what err skine bowles said two weeks ago. >> i think that's crazy. you know, why would you bet the country? really bet the country by going over this fiscal cliff. >> crazy? betting the country? well, according
john boehner also spoke to president obama on the phone last night. he said he wanted to know where the administration would rein in spending, but that he had heard nothing new. >> i was hopeful we'd see a specific plan for cutting spending. we sought to find out today what the president is really willing to do. listen, i remain hopeful that productive conversations in the days ahead can be had but the white house has to get serious. >> sreenivasan: senate minority leader mitch mcconnell echoed that complaint. in a statement, he said, "today, they took a step backward and significantly closer to the cliff." conversely, white house spokesman jay carney charged republicans failed to provide any details on what they could tolerate in the way of tax increases. >> the president has always engaged in this with real numbers. when you talk about flexibility on revenue, all we've heard so far and it's welcomed, don't get me wrong, but we've heard that yes, revenue on the table but we need more than that. >> sreenivasan: away from the microphones, there were reports of possible movement. an a
's go to washington. john boehner is reswrekting the president's michelle proposal involving the fiscal cliff. let's lisp in. >> the president in the coming days. during the campaign the president pledged to american people that he would seek a balanced approach to addressing the debt with a combination of new revenues and spending cuts. the day after the election i said the republican majority would accept new revenue as part of a balanced approach that includes real spending cuts and reforms. now, the white house took three weeks to respond with any kind of a proposal, and much to my disappointment, it wasn't a serious one. still, i'm willing to move forward in good faith. our original framework still stands. instead of raising tax rates, we can produce similar amount of revenue, reforming the tax code to close loopholes and lower tax rates. it's far better for the economy when the american people paver on that approach by 2-1. they favor it eep more when we can also show them that real spending cuts will, in fact, reduce the deficit. now, there have been many conversations over the l
. here is speaker john boehner. >> i'm disappointed in where we are and disappointed in what's happened over the last couple weeks. going over the fiscal cliff is serious business and i'm here seriously trying to resolve it. and i would hope the white house would get serious as well. >> reporter: you had senate republican leader mitch mcconnell say after a meeting with geithner that he considered this is a step backward. and so all the rhetoric, all the talk here on capitol hill sounds pretty pessimistic at this point, guys. bill: we heard a little bit from chris van hollen. what is the latest reaction from democrats to republicans mike? melissa: democrats say if you don't like the president's plan, republicans where is your plan? where exactly are you going to generate more revenue. they're trying to draw the republicans out to put specifics out there in terms of what cuts they want to make to entitlements, feeling like that may hurt republican argument. bottom line, house democratic leader nancy pelosi says she thinks republicans will eventually see the light. melissa: why am i confid
what is really going on behind the scenes, which is real negotiating. so i asked that question of john boehner, who has been through this kind of negotiating many, many times over many years, if that's what we're seeing or if we're at a stalemate. listen to this . the past 24 hours, is this the necessary public posturing that needs to go on to get an endgame or is there serious stalemate right now? >> there is a stalemate. let's not kid ourselves. i'm not trying to make this more difficult, but if you watched me over the last three weeks, i've been very girded in what i have to say because i don't want to make it harder for me or the president or members of both parties to be able to find common ground. but when i come out the day after the election, and make it clear that republicans will put revenue on the table, i took a great risk. and then the white house spends three weeks trying to develop a proposal and they send one up here, they didn't want to have this extra spending that is actually greater than the amount they're willing to cut. i mean, it is -- it was not a serious propos
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)